effect_bass_and_treble

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates what the tool does and lists parameters. It does not state whether the effect is destructive, whether it applies to the current selection, how the gain interacts with the other parameters, or what happens when all values are left at their defaults.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean argument list. It avoids unnecessary prose, though the phrase 'simple tonal shaping tool' adds only modest value and the argument list partially mirrors the schema field names.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The parameters are fully documented, which is the most critical information for calling the tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on how the effect behaves in context, such as whether it applies to selected audio, whether it can be undone, or what the tool returns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero descriptions for its parameters, so the Args block is the only source of semantic meaning. It fully documents all three parameters with dB ranges, defaults, and clarifies that gain is output gain, which is valuable beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence, 'Adjust bass and treble frequencies with a simple tonal shaping tool,' clearly names the action and target. It is distinguishable from more complex siblings like effect_equalization by the word 'simple', though it does not explicitly name the alternative it competes with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'simple tonal shaping tool' weakly implies it is for basic bass/treble adjustments rather than full equalization, but no alternative is named and no exclusion criteria are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.